|
Post by vanerme3 on Mar 3, 2013 19:54:15 GMT -6
I think to a certain degree dodgeball will be like baseball in the sense that there are calls that are black and white (safe/out; hit/not hit) that will boil down to "judgement calls" due to the fact that it's a face paced game with a million things for the ref to look at. I think that having refs who are confident and know the game well will be a better solution than altering a fundamental rule of our game (the ball is dead when it hits another ball).
I know, "having refs that are confident and know the game well" isn't a very good solution to this debate. But something I would like to try in the future is potentially not having captains in referee discussions. If the refs can get together and objectively talk about what they saw without anybody in their ear, I personally feel like we would be better off.
My biggest problem with this is the whole "immunity catch" that I detailed above (I would type it again but typing with a broken hand takes forever. For the curious, scroll up). If we could find an alternate solution that wouldn't give the opportunity for the "immunity catch", I would definitely like to explore it.
|
|
|
Post by sibla8 on Mar 3, 2013 20:50:25 GMT -6
Alright, if I remember this correctly this is what we agreed on last time we talked about it. If a player has a ball and makes a catch and the thrown ball clearly does not touch the other ball then it is considered a catch, the player that threw the ball is out and the player that caught the ball gets a teammate in. However, if the player catches the thrown ball in a simultaneous motion using the ball they already had in their possession it is considered a trap and no one goes out or comes in. Regarding the team trap rule. If a teammate uses their ball to make a team catch then the player who was initially hit is out and the player who caught the ball remains in. This makes the most sense. People are too concerned about eliminating confusion for the referees and not concerned enough with the game for the players. The game isn't for the refs, it's for the players. I don't think rules should be catered for the refs. Catches with a ball already in possession need to be allowed. To avoid lengthy arguments that delay games, though, you could just say if there's any doubt on whether it hit the ball first before being caught, it's a trap. Any doubt, and it's a trap. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Mar 3, 2013 22:45:11 GMT -6
To avoid lengthy arguments that delay games, though, you could just say if there's any doubt on whether it hit the ball first before being caught, it's a trap. Any doubt, and it's a trap. Seems pretty simple and logical to me. Its already in the Rulebook, that Officials are advised to rule a trap [3.4.1.3.4] I'll draw up a draft of the revised rules as soon as I get a chance this week, reflecting better language of all the traps. Nobody caught these mistakes in past revisions! If anyone's bored, take a reread of the Rulebook and let us know of any mistakes, ambiguities and such, yes?
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Mar 4, 2013 0:03:33 GMT -6
I'm going through the rule book and suggesting grammatical and phrasing changes as I see fit. They are merely suggestions though.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 8, 2013 13:32:50 GMT -6
Alright, if I remember this correctly this is what we agreed on last time we talked about it. If a player has a ball and makes a catch and the thrown ball clearly does not touch the other ball then it is considered a catch, the player that threw the ball is out and the player that caught the ball gets a teammate in. However, if the player catches the thrown ball in a simultaneous motion using the ball they already had in their possession it is considered a trap and no one goes out or comes in. Regarding the team trap rule. If a teammate uses their ball to make a team catch then the player who was initially hit is out and the player who caught the ball remains in. People are too concerned about eliminating confusion for the referees and not concerned enough with the game for the players. The game isn't for the refs, it's for the players. I don't think rules should be catered for the refs. I agree 100%, but again I have to point back to the thousands of arguments and angry thread post every single one of us have said and posted about refs in the NCDA. Unless we help them, we are only hurting ourselves. Its only logical As for the proposed rule of not allowing captains in ref's discussions, WE MUST MAKE THIS A RULE. Its so simple and brilliant how has this not been suggested yet? No more arguments, no more player to player contact, I love it.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Mar 8, 2013 14:49:14 GMT -6
I'm with Van Ermen, McCarthy, and Sibla on this. I know it makes it harder for the referees, but honestly that's on the refs. I've already said my bit on referees this year in the podcast and on the forums I believe, and I really think that if you let people catch with the ball it'll make the catching too safe. I think people'll just hold onto balls and go for catches the entire time and not get out, and that'll make no sense to fans.
In my mind we should cater to the player first, then the fans, then the referees.
I agree about not letting captains into the referees discussion. I also think we need to enforce non-captain players trying to talk to captains trying to talk to captains better, because multiple times this season as a ref and a captain I've had to deal with non-captain players trying to argue with refs. Getting firstly non-captains out of the discussions, and then captains out, I think the referees can do a better job. I'm sure I've influenced my fair share of calls, and I'm sure opposing captains have done the same against me, but that's something that needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 10, 2013 1:53:07 GMT -6
I shall quite my case then...but I'm warning you guys after 6 years in the NCDA. The proposed rule change will only open up arguments during games. I'v seen it happen when it was the original rule.
Make the captains ban on ref discussions a rule or our game is going to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by vanerme3 on Mar 10, 2013 11:51:48 GMT -6
Since the ban on captains in ref discussions isn't changing a fundamental rule of our game, how would people feel about enforcing it during nationals? I know we normally vote on this sort of thing, but since it's pretty cut and dry I feel like we could get it in the rulebook pretty fast. I'll let other people who are smarter than me figure out the logistics of it all.
Also a suggestion for enforcing this: First time a captain tries to interject in a ref discussion= yellow card? Second time-=red card? This may be too harsh or not harsh enough, I just figured we could lay the groundwork for enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Mar 10, 2013 12:06:00 GMT -6
I feel like cards should only be used if they don't leave the discussion immediately. If you argue with one of the refs then they call for a discussion you're naturally going to try and tell them what happened from your point of view. If you try and interject because you felt that your team got screwed and then you get a yellow card, then your team is a.) going to be even more upset and b.) is going to be in more trouble on the court because typically (not always) the captain is one of the top players for your team. I think if you tell the captain that he or she needs to leave or a card will be given then they'll leave immediately, and if they don't a card should be given. If a player who's not part of the captaincy group tries to get involved though, they should be given a card immediately because even in the current rules they shouldn't be there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by vanerme3 on Mar 10, 2013 12:26:41 GMT -6
Talking to refs isn't card worthy, but trying to convince them one way or another I feel should be. Asking what happened, what the ruling is, etc isn't what falls under this. But sitting there saying "my guy never got hit, that's not true" etc. is more what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Mar 10, 2013 14:08:59 GMT -6
The Official Conference thing is already in the Rulebook:
4.2.2.3.1 Officials' Conference -If a quick hand signal from the Head Referee is not sufficient to clear up the call, an Officials' Conference may be useful. When least likely to disrupt the flow of the game, the Head Referee should stop play and conference privately with the Officials in order to make a final call. Players should not be near the Conference.
Enforcing that is just good Officiating. I've had to tell both players and captains to back up while issuing a final decision with my Officiating Crew.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Mar 10, 2013 17:42:44 GMT -6
well I should have known that. My b!
|
|